Code Review

Code Review

Perform a comprehensive code review of changes on the current branch compared to main. This skill can be invoked standalone or used as part of /complete-task.

Arguments

• --security-only — Focus only on security issues
• --architecture-only — Focus only on architecture violations
• --diff {base} — Compare against a specific base (default: origin/main)
• {files} — Review only specific files (space-separated)

Process

Step 1: Gather Changes

# Get list of changed files
git diff origin/main...HEAD --name-only

# Get full diff for analysis
git diff origin/main...HEAD

# Get commit messages for context
git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline

Step 2: Security Review

Check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities:

Injection (A03:2021)

• SQL: Look for string concatenation in queries, raw SQL without parameters
• Command: Look for Process.Start, Bash with user input
• Search patterns: FromSqlRaw, ExecuteSqlRaw, string interpolation in queries

Broken Authentication (A07:2021)

• Hardcoded credentials, API keys, connection strings
• Missing authorization attributes on endpoints
• Weak password validation

Sensitive Data Exposure (A02:2021)

• Logging sensitive data (passwords, tokens, PII)
• Returning sensitive fields in API responses
• Missing encryption for sensitive storage

Security Misconfiguration (A05:2021)

• Debug mode enabled in non-dev code
• Overly permissive CORS
• Missing security headers
• Default credentials

XSS (A03:2021)

• React: dangerouslySetInnerHTML without sanitization
• Unescaped user input in responses

Step 3: Architecture Review

Use MCP tools for automated checks, then supplement with manual review.

Hexagonal Architecture — call mcp__signalbeam-validator__validate_all_layers:

Returns structured JSON with pass/fail per service. Report any violations found.

Result Pattern — call mcp__signalbeam-validator__check_result_pattern for each changed handler file:

Identify handler files from the diff (*Handler.cs in Application layers) and check each one. The tool flags thrown business exceptions that should return Result<T> instead.

CQRS Violations (manual check):

• Commands in Query folders or vice versa
• Query handlers calling write repositories
• Command handlers returning data (queries in disguise)

Domain Rules (manual check):

• Entities with public setters (should be private/protected)
• Missing factory methods (public constructors on aggregates)
• Domain logic in Infrastructure layer
• Anemic entities (all logic in handlers)

Step 4: Quality Review

Code Smells

• Methods longer than 30 lines
• Classes longer than 300 lines
• Deep nesting (> 3 levels)
• Magic numbers/strings without constants
• Duplicate code blocks (> 5 lines repeated)

Error Handling

• Empty catch blocks
• Catching generic Exception without re-throwing
• Missing null checks on external data
• Missing validation on API inputs

Testing Gaps

• New public methods without corresponding tests
• New handlers without test coverage
• Modified business logic without updated tests

Naming & Conventions

• Non-descriptive names (data, info, temp, x)
• Inconsistent naming with existing code
• Missing XML docs on public APIs

Step 5: Generate Report

Output in this format:

## Code Review: {branch-name}

**Reviewed:** {file count} files, {addition count} additions, {deletion count} deletions
**Commits:** {commit count}

---

### Critical Issues (Block PR)

These MUST be fixed before merging:

| # | File | Line | Issue | Rule |
|---|------|------|-------|------|
| 1 | {file} | {line} | {description} | {rule violated} |

**Details:**

#### Issue 1: {title}
- **File:** `{path}:{line}`
- **Code:**
  ```csharp
  {offending code snippet}

• Problem: {why this is an issue}
• Fix: {how to fix it}

Warnings (Should Fix)

These should be addressed but don't block:

Suggestions (Nice to Have)

Improvements that would enhance code quality:

• {suggestion 1}
• {suggestion 2}

Positive Observations

Things done well in this change:

• {positive 1}
• {positive 2}

Summary

Overall: {APPROVED / CHANGES REQUESTED / BLOCKED}

{If APPROVED: "Ready to merge after addressing warnings (optional)"} {If CHANGES REQUESTED: "Please address the issues above and re-request review"} {If BLOCKED: "Critical issues must be resolved before this can proceed"}

## Severity Levels

- **Critical (Block):** Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, architecture violations
- **Warning (Should Fix):** Code smells, missing tests, convention violations
- **Suggestion (Nice to Have):** Style improvements, refactoring opportunities

## Relationship to /check-architecture

`/code-review` and `/check-architecture` have complementary scopes:

| Aspect | `/check-architecture` | `/code-review` |
|--------|----------------------|----------------|
| Speed | Fast (local checks) | Thorough (full diff analysis) |
| Security | No | Yes (OWASP Top 10) |
| Architecture | Layer deps, Result pattern, CQRS, entities, migrations | Same + circular deps, anemic models |
| Quality | No | Yes (code smells, naming, testing gaps) |
| When | During development, quick verification | Before PR, as gate in /complete-task |

Use `/check-architecture` for quick feedback while coding. Use `/code-review` for the final gate before a PR.

## Integration with /complete-task

When called as an agent from `/complete-task`:
- Return only the Summary section with pass/fail status
- Include the count of critical issues
- Critical issues cause the parent workflow to pause for fixes

## Guidelines

- Be specific — include file paths and line numbers
- Be constructive — suggest fixes, don't just criticize
- Prioritize — focus on what matters most for this codebase
- Context matters — consider the feature being built
- Don't nitpick — save style debates for linters

---
> Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/signalbeam-io) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.
<!-- tomevault:4.0:skill_md:2026-04-13 -->